The argument for Tanking: Why it works, and you just don't remember

[Chicago-Bull-E]

Not tanking isn't about winning 27 games instead of 22. Its about being able to trade Lavine for a boatload of assets at the deadline instead of him having no value on a terrible team. Its about teaching Coby to read defenses and Lauri to drive.

Think about your Detroit example. If they play worse and get their guy and then put him into a terrible situation and intentionally lose, they take their guy and throw him in the trash. They functionally would have destroyed the reason for losing on purpose in the first place.

I'm not exactly sure what a "terrible situation" is supposed to be here. Are we all sitting here really thankful that guys like Otto Porter are here to really create an incredible culture of responsibility and accountability (which is what "winning culture" really is, not just getting a few more meaningless wins)? Is Blake Griffin being on the Pistons, occasionally winning them some meaningless games, really elevating the "situation" there?

Wouldn't jettisoning the team of its vets basically allow for even more "experience" and focused coaching staff attention for the kids? Are Zach LaVine's career learnings really helping Coby White out a ton here?

You bring up a good point about drafting but it doesn't support tanking. Best 3 players by VORP (its a sortable stat on bref):
2019 21 2 11
2018 3 5 36
2017 3 13 14
2016 1 27 6
2015 1 32 11
2014 41 3 25
2013 15 27 10
2012 1 6 35
2011 15 30 1
2010 10 1 5

So, if you had been drafting #5 the last 10 years, you would have been able to draft 2 of the 3 best players in every draft. Basically, drafting smart generally trumps drafting position. The only really quibble one could have is that frequently the #1 guy is heads and shoulders over the others but given the new lottery odds, a few wins or losses makes little difference in the odds.

1. I'm not sure why you're using a cumulative stat like VORP, but then including so many years that are very recent (do you really think teams would rather have Cameron Johnson than Zion Williamson?).
2. I've just never really cared for the "draft randomness" argument. Drafting smart AND drafting high is obviously what you want, and it is what you should always aim for. I don't really care where Nikola Jokic or whomever went, you are handicapping yourself for no reason if you're gonna work under the assumption that you'll just find a stud at pick 12 or whatever.

It's no different from playing poker. Yes it's very much dumb luck reliant. Yes you can win a pot even with a 2 and 7. But why would you want to start off with a worse hand? If there was anything you could do in poker to improve your starting hand, wouldn't you do it? Would you really take an Ace-10 over an Ace-King just cause "the odds aren't that different?"

I mean, even in your own examples following your cherry picked criteria, every single year except one, one of those top three VORPers is a top-3 pick. 13 were top-6 picks. The other 54 picks, 17. So your own case is basically saying that the top-6 alone is almost as good at getting you a top-3 VORP as the entire rest of the field. The numbers would probably be even closer if you went back further and didn't have so many recent years.

And if you think 2020 is a strong draft, as many do, then a high pick is even more important - the "randomness" you're trying to point out is much stronger in weak drafts (like 2013). In historically strong drafts, it's usually different.

Top 5 VORP leaders by draft year
2003 - 1, 5, 3, 4, 18
1996 - 13, 5, 1, 15, 2 (Kobe was obviously #13 - likely would've been #1 in 2000s draft culture)
1984 - 3, 16, 5, 1, 4

There have been a bunch of studies that do this, and they all come to the same obvious conclusion that higher ranked draft picks outperform lower ones. Of course “drafting smart” is important whether you’re at 1 or 31, but the argument of lower or middle round players being as valuable is obviously not the case.

Nate Silvers old one

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-is-winning-the-nba-draft-lottery-really-worth/

82 games has a fun one, noting a pretty sizable drop after 5.

https://www.82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

Another fun one

https://www.statsperform.com/resource/pick-appraisal-what-history-tells-us-about-the-value-of-each-nba-draft-slot/

A similar argument is used all the time with finances. People claim that you don’t NEED to have the richest owners to win, and they’ll point to the nba champions and compare the team salary. They’ll say “The Knicks spend the most and suck”. Again, you need to make good use of resources, but why would you want your franchise to start off with 80 million in salary available instead of 120 available? It’s not logical.

[Leslie Forman]

Literally, no current contender is there because of tanking, unless you call Philly a contender.

Lakers - FA destination
Clippers - Ditto
Boston - Suckered Billy King
Miami - Didn't tank
Denver - Didn't tank
Toronto - Didn't tank
Brooklyn - FA destination
Milwaukee - Didn't tank except for one year, for which it got Jabari Parker

Have I left any contender out? Meanwhile, several teams have tanked for years, so far with nothing to show for it.

No thanks. The evidence is clear.

Most of these contenders are, like you mentioned, either a much more desirable free agency location or, frankly, not really all that close to a title.

The recent NBA is very much a historic anomaly led by the LeBron/Durant/Kawhi decisions. The vast majority of past title winners had at least one of their top 2 guys drafted with one of their own high picks.

Cavs
Spurs
Bulls
Rockets
Pistons
Lakers
Bullets
Warriors
Bucks
Celtics

And let's not forget exactly how the Lakers got Anthony Davis, or the many #1 picks Cleveland needed to build that team.

[DroseReturnChi]

Tanking is not about getting #1. In fact it is about covering for yourself because you probably won't get #1. It is about ensuring you get a high pick, period.

It's about making sure you have a higher chance at getting Luka Doncic instead of Wendell Carter. Or Dwyane Wade instead of Kirk Hinrich.

Of course it doesn't matter if you make a horrible pick. If you wanna go ahead and draft a Marvin Bagley, or Tyrus Thomas, or Tyson Chandler, whatever, well it probably doesn't matter if you are a "tanker" or not, you were most likely going to be a horrible NBA GM anyways. The point is, assuming you trust your scouting ability, to give yourself as many options as you can in the draft. That's all it is.

If Detroit had done a better job of tanking, maybe they end up with their main target, Williams, instead of Killian Hayes. People can point out that they had a worse record than the Bulls - well it wasn't worse enough. If they had been just a few wins worse, they could have ended up in Golden State or Minnesota's spot. Even worst case, end up with #5 - maybe that's high enough for them to find a trade up, instead of dangling a #7. If Dallas ends up with #7 instead of #5, there is no trade for Doncic - instead they are stuck with Carter too, instead of either Doncic or Young.

I mean, who really gives a crap that the Bulls won 27 games that season, instead of 22 or something? Do you really think back and cherish those extra wins? Are you getting on Youtube once in a while to watch highlights of those wins against the mighty 2018 Knicks, Mavericks, Hawks, or Grizzlies? Really?

yep its so cringe people want carter, kirk over those guys and get star fas with the so called development.
You dont need freaking fas if you draft wade, doncic 2 yrs in a row. i would have quit watching bulls if they drafted hayes many clamored for.

[DroseReturnChi]

Not tanking isn't about winning 27 games instead of 22. Its about being able to trade Lavine for a boatload of assets at the deadline instead of him having no value on a terrible team. Its about teaching Coby to read defenses and Lauri to drive.

Its about both. If you get 22 wins you get higher pick and trading Lavine not only brings assets but guarantees a higher pick which is worth a superstar by itself. Basically, the idea is tank whenever you have a terrible core and a great draft upcoming.
Bulls apply to both hence why its worth to tank 1-2 yr rather gunning for 8th seed and get swept.

[coldfish]

Not tanking isn't about winning 27 games instead of 22. Its about being able to trade Lavine for a boatload of assets at the deadline instead of him having no value on a terrible team. Its about teaching Coby to read defenses and Lauri to drive.

Think about your Detroit example. If they play worse and get their guy and then put him into a terrible situation and intentionally lose, they take their guy and throw him in the trash. They functionally would have destroyed the reason for losing on purpose in the first place.

I'm not exactly sure what a "terrible situation" is supposed to be here. Are we all sitting here really thankful that guys like Otto Porter are here to really create an incredible culture of responsibility and accountability (which is what "winning culture" really is, not just getting a few more meaningless wins)? Is Blake Griffin being on the Pistons, occasionally winning them some meaningless games, really elevating the "situation" there?

Wouldn't jettisoning the team of its vets basically allow for even more "experience" and focused coaching staff attention for the kids? Are Zach LaVine's career learnings really helping Coby White out a ton here?

You bring up a good point about drafting but it doesn't support tanking. Best 3 players by VORP (its a sortable stat on bref):
2019 21 2 11
2018 3 5 36
2017 3 13 14
2016 1 27 6
2015 1 32 11
2014 41 3 25
2013 15 27 10
2012 1 6 35
2011 15 30 1
2010 10 1 5

So, if you had been drafting #5 the last 10 years, you would have been able to draft 2 of the 3 best players in every draft. Basically, drafting smart generally trumps drafting position. The only really quibble one could have is that frequently the #1 guy is heads and shoulders over the others but given the new lottery odds, a few wins or losses makes little difference in the odds.

1. I'm not sure why you're using a cumulative stat like VORP, but then including so many years that are very recent (do you really think teams would rather have Cameron Johnson than Zion Williamson?).
2. I've just never really cared for the "draft randomness" argument. Drafting smart AND drafting high is obviously what you want, and it is what you should always aim for. I don't really care where Nikola Jokic or whomever went, you are handicapping yourself for no reason if you're gonna work under the assumption that you'll just find a stud at pick 12 or whatever.

It's no different from playing poker. Yes it's very much dumb luck reliant. Yes you can win a pot even with a 2 and 7. But why would you want to start off with a worse hand? If there was anything you could do in poker to improve your starting hand, wouldn't you do it? Would you really take an Ace-10 over an Ace-King just cause "the odds aren't that different?"

I mean, even in your own examples following your cherry picked criteria, every single year except one, one of those top three VORPers is a top-3 pick. 13 were top-6 picks. The other 54 picks, 17. So your own case is basically saying that the top-6 alone is almost as good at getting you a top-3 VORP as the entire rest of the field. The numbers would probably be even closer if you went back further and didn't have so many recent years.

And if you think 2020 is a strong draft, as many do, then a high pick is even more important - the "randomness" you're trying to point out is much stronger in weak drafts (like 2013). In historically strong drafts, it's usually different.

Top 5 VORP leaders by draft year
2003 - 1, 5, 3, 4, 18
1996 - 13, 5, 1, 15, 2 (Kobe was obviously #13 - likely would've been #1 in 2000s draft culture)
1984 - 3, 16, 5, 1, 4

There have been a bunch of studies that do this, and they all come to the same obvious conclusion that higher ranked draft picks outperform lower ones. Of course “drafting smart” is important whether you’re at 1 or 31, but the argument of lower or middle round players being as valuable is obviously not the case.

Nate Silvers old one

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-is-winning-the-nba-draft-lottery-really-worth/

82 games has a fun one, noting a pretty sizable drop after 5.

https://www.82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

Another fun one

https://www.statsperform.com/resource/pick-appraisal-what-history-tells-us-about-the-value-of-each-nba-draft-slot/

A similar argument is used all the time with finances. People claim that you don’t NEED to have the richest owners to win, and they’ll point to the nba champions and compare the team salary. They’ll say “The Knicks spend the most and suck”. Again, you need to make good use of resources, but why would you want your franchise to start off with 80 million in salary available instead of 120 available? It’s not logical.

The argument isn't that 8 is the same value as 4. The argument is that the difference in value between those draft slots isn't nearly as big as people are trying to say it is while also completely downplaying the damage in value that tanking does.

There is a reason why tanking doesn't work. Its been pointed out countless times here that it doesn't. We are just trying to explain *why* it doesn't work.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

I'm not exactly sure what a "terrible situation" is supposed to be here. Are we all sitting here really thankful that guys like Otto Porter are here to really create an incredible culture of responsibility and accountability (which is what "winning culture" really is, not just getting a few more meaningless wins)? Is Blake Griffin being on the Pistons, occasionally winning them some meaningless games, really elevating the "situation" there?

Wouldn't jettisoning the team of its vets basically allow for even more "experience" and focused coaching staff attention for the kids? Are Zach LaVine's career learnings really helping Coby White out a ton here?


1. I'm not sure why you're using a cumulative stat like VORP, but then including so many years that are very recent (do you really think teams would rather have Cameron Johnson than Zion Williamson?).
2. I've just never really cared for the "draft randomness" argument. Drafting smart AND drafting high is obviously what you want, and it is what you should always aim for. I don't really care where Nikola Jokic or whomever went, you are handicapping yourself for no reason if you're gonna work under the assumption that you'll just find a stud at pick 12 or whatever.

It's no different from playing poker. Yes it's very much dumb luck reliant. Yes you can win a pot even with a 2 and 7. But why would you want to start off with a worse hand? If there was anything you could do in poker to improve your starting hand, wouldn't you do it? Would you really take an Ace-10 over an Ace-King just cause "the odds aren't that different?"

I mean, even in your own examples following your cherry picked criteria, every single year except one, one of those top three VORPers is a top-3 pick. 13 were top-6 picks. The other 54 picks, 17. So your own case is basically saying that the top-6 alone is almost as good at getting you a top-3 VORP as the entire rest of the field. The numbers would probably be even closer if you went back further and didn't have so many recent years.

And if you think 2020 is a strong draft, as many do, then a high pick is even more important - the "randomness" you're trying to point out is much stronger in weak drafts (like 2013). In historically strong drafts, it's usually different.

Top 5 VORP leaders by draft year
2003 - 1, 5, 3, 4, 18
1996 - 13, 5, 1, 15, 2 (Kobe was obviously #13 - likely would've been #1 in 2000s draft culture)
1984 - 3, 16, 5, 1, 4

There have been a bunch of studies that do this, and they all come to the same obvious conclusion that higher ranked draft picks outperform lower ones. Of course “drafting smart” is important whether you’re at 1 or 31, but the argument of lower or middle round players being as valuable is obviously not the case.

Nate Silvers old one

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-is-winning-the-nba-draft-lottery-really-worth/

82 games has a fun one, noting a pretty sizable drop after 5.

https://www.82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

Another fun one

https://www.statsperform.com/resource/pick-appraisal-what-history-tells-us-about-the-value-of-each-nba-draft-slot/

A similar argument is used all the time with finances. People claim that you don’t NEED to have the richest owners to win, and they’ll point to the nba champions and compare the team salary. They’ll say “The Knicks spend the most and suck”. Again, you need to make good use of resources, but why would you want your franchise to start off with 80 million in salary available instead of 120 available? It’s not logical.

The argument isn't that 8 is the same value as 4. The argument is that the difference in value between those draft slots isn't nearly as big as people are trying to say it is while also completely downplaying the damage in value that tanking does.

There is a reason why tanking doesn't work. Its been pointed out countless times here that it doesn't. We are just trying to explain *why* it doesn't work.

Of course tanking works, I’ve provided examples of it working.

It also doesn’t work. Depends on the circumstances, like any strategy. The interesting discussion taking place is discussing that gray area and whether it’s something applicable to this team.There is no discussion worth having that applies a blanket “NO” to any strategy.

[Leslie Forman]

The argument isn't that 8 is the same value as 4. The argument is that the difference in value between those draft slots isn't nearly as big as people are trying to say it is while also completely downplaying the damage in value that tanking does.

I have yet to see any compelling argument that explains how the vaunted vet presence of guys like Nikola Mirotic, or Robin Lopez, or Otto Porter, or Zach LaVine, or Tomas Satoransky, etc. is just so incredibly valuable that it's worth multiple draft spots.

There is a reason why tanking doesn't work. Its been pointed out countless times here that it doesn't. We are just trying to explain *why* it doesn't work.

It doesn't work…except for all those times it did, in fact, work.

And it's myopic just looking at draft picks as the players on the team they're drafted by, they are arguably often even more valuable as trade chips. LeBron is stuck on zero titles if he doesn't go to teams loaded with high picks or Dwyane Wade, who himself was a #5 pick, and would have been the #3 pick under current draft rules.

[2018C3]

Tanking looks like a solid plan in theory, but a problem occurs later when the organization tries to keep the players they have been developing. If you are not wining, the good players you have found will want to move on to greener pastures.

With the way the draft works now, which was designed to discourage tanking. Its no longer a solid plan.

I believe most but not all draft pics have there highest desirability on the day they are drafted. For every star found there are more busts who do not live up to potential.

Sometimes I just wounder to myself with how the draft now works. How well can a team do if they they traded out of every draft, and used those trades to pick up future assets and several solid players.

That team, could then acquire several assets, possibly make the playoffs. And at the right time pull the trigger, and consolidate assets to pull off a 2007 Boston Celtics type of trade to build a instant contender.

Its just a thought, and a different way of thinking to possibly exploit the new draft position order.

[Southpaw]

The Boston style build to a contender happened 13 years ago and the reason it hasn't been replicated is because it needed a "perfect storm" to happen and even that needed 2 top 10 picks from the Cs.

As many have said, there are different ways to build a contender the same way that there are also different ways to get a superstar but the most likely is to draft one and develop your own. And the higher you are in the draft, the more likely it is to get a superstar.

[JimmyButler21]

I mean, who really gives a crap that the Bulls won 27 games that season, instead of 22 or something? Do you really think back and cherish those extra wins? Are you getting on Youtube once in a while to watch highlights of those wins against the mighty 2018 Knicks, Mavericks, Hawks, or Grizzlies? Really?

There was a close win against the Mavericks in the Zion draft and I remember Bulls fans celebrating on social media and here after the win. It was so maddening. A lot of people really like mediocrity for some reason.

[PrimzyBulls81]

CAN WE JUST CLOSE these tanking posts?? AK didnt came here for that, he came here to Build a winner asap!!!
F.... Me and all these stupid tanking crap posts in this modern way of drafting

[troza]

:banghead: CAN WE JUST CLOSE these tanking posts?? AK didnt came here for that, he came here to Build a winner asap!!!
F.... Me and all these stupid tanking crap posts in this modern way of drafting

I know that the first thing in mind is that he didn't come for that.

But... that has something that has to be considered anytime a reboot is needed... and the way the NBA is, it will be.

And I will say this... look at the Spurs... they tanked (even if unintentionally) when Robison got injured and got Duncan to show for it. The Warriors did it last year as some injuries took forever to heal compared to what they do for players in the title picture...

I'm one that still stands that we should have tanked when D.Rose went down. Yes, the team was good and got us a very nice regular season performance but if the management believed in Rose so much (as most of us here did) and that he was clearly a difference maker, that would be a good tanking here.

So... I will stand in here... context matters and tanking might be a viable strategy in the life of a club. Even we had some tanks that made sense... let's not focus if the dynasty should have been broken in 98 or not... but in 99, tanking was the right decision. And it worked pretty well (Elton Brand and Ron Artest isn't a bad tanking result). The thing is... it is a way to get something, not the end goal.

And the end goal cannot be getting the #1 pick or nothing... superstar or nothing. We have to play the cards we have.

Right now a tanking doesn't seem a good strategy. We are winning, players are showing value... trading value or value to stay here for the long run is something we still do not know. And there are worst case scenarios where I would consider tanking.

[PrimzyBulls81]

Why again count on unknown rookie who might or may not pan out?? Go after proven established player that will improve this team as soon as possible. I know we arent a playoff team yet, but im feed up with losing and tanking and throwing away BULLS brand as the team of champions! CHICAGO deserves team that competes, not that full of question marks and rebuilds for century!?

TANKING is for losers and ITS in this modern age of drafting, mentality of losers !!!

[the ultimates]

With the way the lottery odds have changed tanking doesn't make sense. You play your young players and see if they develop and get better which will lead to winning games. If they don't get better and you lose games you've achieved the same thing as tanking while at least making a legit evaluation of what's on the roster.

Secondly, unless you have a player or players who are seen as generational talents your picking based largely on upside and how close they can get to it. So that makes the value between let's say the third pick and the fifth pick less. Why Bulls fans continuously want to get on the tanking treadmill because you have no idea when the ping pong balls will swing your way is crazy. Especially considering you have a team full of high draft picks that are at varying stages of development right now.

I'll repeat what I put in other threads. Bulls fans constantly moaned about not having young high upside players. Then when they get those players they don't give them the time needed to develop.

[League Circles]

It's funny as hell that some tanking proponents call something like a #7 pick a "high pick". When you pick 7th you should project to acquire the 7th best player in a draft. There are NEVER 7 good long term players in an NBA draft. Usually there are no more than 3. It's no coincidence that the lottery was thus for the top THREE spots all these years.

Simply put, the draft is for losers. It's basically a video game in the off-season for losers franchises and their fans to let their imagination run wild. A real team in a real market that actually had balls would basically trade their draft pick every year to a sucker GM looking for "assets".

IF you're in a top 8 destination roughly, which we unequivocally are IMO, you should be perpetually focused on FA. But almost no teams ever have the guts to do that properly.

[cjbulls]

Last nights win is a good anti tanking message. It was more important for all these young guys to learn how to play a close game, better yet to win. It builds confidence and distills what skills and traits will make each of the young guys better players to help a team win.

Its way better developmentally than throwing out some garbage roster and telling Coby and Pat to just have a free-for-all while we wait for the real stars to show up.

[Onibuh]

You need luck, that's it. Tanking is not a strategy or something a team should look at.
If you don't have enough talent, you need to add talent. It may take years to finally get it done. Keep your picks and draft good. Make the trades when they open up. Sign FAs when they are willing to join you. It's a combination of it all.

Tanking does not work. If the example is GS, they didn't tank for a Top pick and their core guys weren't Top 5 picks- before the lottery has changed.

People love to say that tanking doesn't work. As if there was an alternative that does work. Besides, depends on your definition of "work", and your goals.

"Add talent, build and coach it up and become a good franchise will make your team a contender"

If it was that easy, everyone would do it. And if it "works", you aren't winning anything if you didn't draft your stud horse already that will win in the finals. Hell, even just get you to the finals. (Or if you are the Lakers and they beat down your door to walk over. That would be great)

Nobody said it would be easy... it's not going to work giving away all your talent and lose on purpose (not the players).
That's not how sports and team building works. That's not how you even reach the finals.

Just look at the Blackhawks and what they have done. They did spend, just were injured and bad. They got lucky with winning the lottery and Kane. They were injured and got Toews. They weren't tanking in a way that would be sending away LaVine, Lauri, Otto and Young. The won because of good trades (Sharp) and hit on later picks (Byfuglien, Hjalmarsson) while developing their own guys (2010 Seabrook and Keith were making a huge jump on their level of play. After all of that they went out as young team with talent and added big name FAs (Campbell 1 year before Hossa).
It's just a combination with some luck of it all. You need to be patient, develop your players and when the time is right you will be able to get the needed upgrades (Championship coach, big name UFA).
Tanking alone does and will never work.


And btw, LaVine shows why we should look to add to him and White and Williams instead of sending him away.
You add talent, not assets. Simple as that.

[Stratmaster]

Yeah. Let's purposely lose for years until we find the Golden goose!

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[Stratmaster]

Hey. Every player in the NBA who ever won a championship was a draft pick. They were either traded for with players who were draft picks, or were draft picks themselves. Name me any successful franchise whose main pieces weren't drafted at some point.

Therefore, the way to win is with draft picks. Since tanking gets you draft picks, tanking is the best way to win!

Sorry, my app doesn't let me use green font..

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[coldfish]

Last nights win is a good anti tanking message. It was more important for all these young guys to learn how to play a close game, better yet to win. It builds confidence and distills what skills and traits will make each of the young guys better players to help a team win.

Its way better developmentally than throwing out some garbage roster and telling Coby and Pat to just have a free-for-all while we wait for the real stars to show up.

I agree with that.

There is an issue here though. Part of the Bulls fans' PTSD from GarPax was that the minute anything went well, the entire team became untouchable in trade. If the Bulls can sustain themselves at 0.500, it will be a painful thought but the trade value of all of the players will go up tremendously. This is the advantage and gain from actually trying.

I hope that the Bulls keep an open mind on the trading front. They may not hit a homerun but I think its entirely possible to improve the team incrementally and get them to the point where they are legitimately a good team. Once you get there, then you can swing for the fences.

GarPax was completely incapable of that process but it doesn't mean it isn't possible. Its actually the route that is far more successful than tanking over the past decade or two.